MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404580552 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0310682

Qualitative insights on sexual health counselling from refugee youth in Bidi Bidi Refugee Settlement, Uganda: Advancing contextual considerations for brief sexuality-related communication in a humanitarian setting

2024· article· en· W4404580552 on OpenAlexafffund
Miranda G. Loutet, Carmen H. Logie, Moses Okumu, Madelaine Coelho, Karel Blondeel, Alyssa McAlpine, F. Mackenzie, Simon Odong Lukone, Nelson Kisubi, Jimmy Okello Lukone, Aninakwah Isaac, Peter Kyambadde, Igor Toskin

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
Canadian institutionsUnited Nations University Institute for Water, Environment, and HealthWomen's College HospitalPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
FundersOntario Ministry of Research and InnovationCanada Research ChairsUNICEFViiV HealthcareWorld Health Organization
KeywordsRefugeeHealth careFocus groupThematic analysisHuman sexualityContext (archaeology)Reproductive healthQualitative researchPsychologyNursingMedicineSociologyGender studiesPopulationPolitical scienceEnvironmental healthGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Characteristics of enabling healthcare environments to support brief sexuality-related communication (BSC) are understudied in humanitarian settings. We implemented a qualitative study with refugee youth aged 16-24 living in Bidi Bidi Refugee Settlement to understand the feasibility of implementing BSC in a humanitarian context. We examined feelings toward doctor's visits in general, including types of conversations youth engage in with healthcare providers, as well as comfort, safety, and willingness to talk with healthcare providers about sexual health. We implemented four focus groups with refugee youth in Bidi Bidi, two with young women and two with young men, and applied thematic analysis informed by a social contextual theoretical framework that explores enabling environments for sexual health promotion. Participants (n = 40; mean age: 20 years, standard deviation: 2.2; women: n = 20; men: n = 20) reported relational, symbolic, and material dimensions of context considered important when discussing sexual health. Relational contexts included a) trusting relationship with local healthcare practitioners, including practices that foster comfort and confidentiality, and b) family, friends, and mentors as additional sources of health information. Symbolic contexts refer to values, norms, and beliefs that reflect what is perceived as valuable and worthy, and in turn, what is devalued and stigmatized. Specific to sexual health, participants discussed stigma toward STIs and HIV, devaluation of women in healthcare settings, and generalized fear of doctors and disease as barriers to engaging in dialogue about sexual health with healthcare providers. Material contexts include agency linked with resource access and experiences. Youth narratives revealed that positive experiences accessing medication to manage pain and infections increased their willingness to engage in healthcare discussions, whereby clinic layouts and dynamics that compromised confidentiality and privacy reduced the likelihood of sexual health dialogue. Language barriers and healthcare provider time constraints were additional factors that reduced healthcare engagement. Taken together, findings can inform BSC implementation strategies that consider the inner and outer settings that shape sexual health dialogue and sexual health and wellbeing among refugee youth living in humanitarian settings.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.009
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.262
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.192 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive HealthFrench-language works237,207